Does anyone out there have the numbers on how many members have joined the CPA Australia's CPA Advice Programme? My limited research suggests so few members have signed up the whole programme could fold. Moreover, possible members do not want to join because they worry the lack of members means they could be force out if it winds up for lack of participation. I have emailed "CPA Advice'many times about the programme and its apparent problems but they never respond. The lack of response suggests they really have made a total mess of it. Having said that, it may be that they are getting somewhere hence my question. Is it the case that CPA Advice is in a hole or is it viable?

For those that want to look. Go to the search box and enter CPA AFSL number 482657 and then click on go to look at the results.

The information shows 4 actual financial planners that were registered before 2010. There were 15 registered in 2016. There were 9 registered in 2017. From the 28, there were two that cancelled in July 2017. Thus the 28 shown on the register has been reduced to 26.

The information is as at 1 August 2017

Sounds like a great way to invest $20million. NOT!!!!!!. Maybe the independent review, can look at clawing back some of the hundreds of thousands paid to the board of CPA Advice for poor management and advice???

Maybe the 2017 financial accounts for CPA Advice will show the only winners to be the CPA Australia Advice board members with their large directors fees and the large number of staff and consultants that service the 24 advisers.

If this was startup, most advisers would advise their clients to give this investment a big miss. The sharks on the Shark Tank, would even give this investment a big miss, as they would say.....the numbers just don't add.

Thank you for that. I had a look and on the basis of what the register says, if 28 is correct, the outcome is almost beyond belief. It is not so much the obscene squandering of member funds but the apparent refusal of the designers of CPA advice to listen to anyone or take any advice from members about what they were doing. It is my understanding they were repeatedly being warned the project was ill considered. Moreover, they were also being advised to consider other ways of approaching it. I live in WA (the wild west) and if I blew 10 million dollars of my client's monies, via a process where I refused to listen to anyone and everyone because, well I am all about me and that means I know best, I would likely be 6 foot under by now.

.
At the Senate hearing this arvo Wade kept a straight face and said it wasn''t a waste of money. It was expected,. It was a long term project which would suffer losses in its formative years. Xenophon asked them to forward a copy of their corporate plan (it's due Friday).

It was crazy to hear them say it's still on track it's still a good investment. They say it's going to be great for the public interest, well what about the members. Are we supposed to just be financial advice philanthropists. Also it can't do anything good for the public with 26 advisers.

Maybe its time to contact those 26 that are left and recommend them kindly to join something else, so that we can shut that this lemon business. It will be interesting when the new board come in, to ask for a set of financials for CPA Advice I want to see the income in comparison to the expenditures. Are the current board and management still being paid this year a fat salary even with barely any revenue!!

What these bastards forget is that some of us have been around for a long time....

When the Gov first started to make this stupid system where Financial Advisors supposedly know enough about tax to advise but accountants DON'T know enough about investment to advise(BTW, I've never sold an investment in my life, so this isn't sour grapes), CPA Australia stabbed us in the back by NOT opposing it..PRECISELY because they thought they could rope in investment advisors and start something like this.

It took the Chartered Institute a whole 5 seconds to work out that it wasn't a good idea and THEY opposed it from the start. Then when members made it clear to CPA, they switched tack and started to oppose it MUCH too late.

Fade dissolve to a time when the system is in place and the rocket surgeons at CPA start an investment arm DESPITE having had fair warning that it wouldn't work. Then, surprise surprise, only 26-28 take it up! In the famous words of my 3 year old niece.. der-brain!!!!

Over the last thirty five years I have seen CPA Australia stab its own membership in the back more times than I care to count. I've seen it go from a PROFESSIONAL Society to a bunch of overpaid, bespectacled, marketing whores with bovine excrement for brains and with the morals and business ethics
of Enron execs.

And it is not restricted to the current mob of sheep either. Some of us are old enough to remember when previous administrators were caught out accelerating income and deferring expenses in the annual accounts to HIDE a loss..WITH, on that occasion as well, the complicity of the auditor d'jour.

góðan dag,

WTF

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Those who get kicked out of teaching, run Accounting Societies, OR... get paid $5m to get kicked out of running Accounting Societies!

If you have a look at the costing table, annual basic fee would be $2,950, then middle strategic fees would be $10,000 and then Holistic (full advice) fees would be $23,232. It would appear that most of the members that have jointed CPA Australia Advice are those under the basic licence/membership. If it costs CPA Australia Advice on average $6 million dollars a year to operate, then assuming a signup of basic members, they would need to at least 2,034 members ($2,950 x 2,034 = $6,000,300.00) to cover costs. This would then indicate that board would need more than the $20 million to keep operating over the 5 year projection , and they would need most small practitioners to sign up, and encourage other firms which receive commissions to shift over to CPA Australia Advise. Somehow, their business plan must been based upon some weird projections and calculations. Now they did slash their costing to encourage signup, but again their overheads need to be slashed.

Not sure what type of finance wizard Graeme Wade or Adam Awty are, but one would think that common sense would tell you, that a restructure of operating costs and labour costs is required. But who am l to tell a finance wizard, financial planner, accountant, and government expert like Graeme Wade how to run a business. Maybe Graeme was one of the experts, like in the ABC TV show Utopia, "Snouts In The Trough" Series 3 | Episode 6

Page 103 of report "CPA Australia received around 600 expressions of interest from members, however very few of these were converted to authorised representatives."

Well Well well. With only 600 expressions of interest, how did CPA ever thing that this business model would ever breakeven, given the overheads and large directors fees?

"CPA Advice's licensing model had a higher cost, relative to other providers" Didn't need a report to tell the members that.

Page 104 "However, from the documents and information the Review Panel has been provided, little action was taken outside of this to assess and address the drivers of CPA Advice's under performance. More recently, and in response to the trend of low take up, costs have been reduced, primarily through a reduction in salaries with cuts to staffing."

Maybe their business model should have started off small, and then expanded when required, and not paid directors fees, given its 100% owned subsidiary of CPA Australia?

"The current financial performance of CPA Advice has been poor relative to the business case in regard to revenue, and substantial changes are likely needed to make CPA Advice viable in the medium to long term."

"The Review Panel's preliminary recommendation is that the CPA Australia undertake a comprehensive post implementation review of CPA Advice. The post implementation review should reconsider the strategy in-light of the low uptake, and look a the factors that have contributed to low uptake and how financial performance can be improved. As discussed, the Review Panel notes that the Board of CPA Advice has already implemented pricing changes to make the offering more competitive."

"The Review Panel recommends the CPA Australia Board investigates options for CPA Advice as a matter of priority to ensure any future losses from the business are minimised." page 105 of report.

Overall CPA Advice will continue to lose money, and will struggle to increase numbers, but the CPA Australia Board should look at options. Well, l think a lot of members here on this site, have put their recommendations more appropriately.

If you have a look at the costing table, annual basic fee would be $2,950, then middle strategic fees would be $10,000 and then Holistic (full advice) fees would be $23,232. It would appear that most of the members that have jointed CPA Australia Advice are those under the basic licence/membership. If it costs CPA Australia Advice on average $6 million dollars a year to operate, then assuming a signup of basic members, they would need to at least 2,034 members ($2,950 x 2,034 = $6,000,300.00) to cover costs. This would then indicate that board would need more than the $20 million to keep operating over the 5 year projection , and they would need most small practitioners to sign up, and encourage other firms which receive commissions to shift over to CPA Australia Advise. Somehow, their business plan must been based upon some weird projections and calculations. Now they did slash their costing to encourage signup, but again their overheads need to be slashed.

Which in theory may be ok to assume a total of 2,034 members are needed, but need to consider the additional resources required to manage those 2,000 members. Look at it now, $6m to manage 25 members. Either it will remain at $6m to manage 2000 members, which begs the question of current inefficiency, or the cost to manage will increase and may require say 3000 members to break even at $9m in cost.

CPA Advice is not Uber, throw money money money at it and those at the top are the only ones who benefit.....oh maybe it is.

Page 47 "CPA Advice Board appointment and remuneration did not follow the same procedure as CPA Australia. Candidates and remuneration were recommended by the former CEO in a meeting in February 2015. The former CEO "outlined the recommended candidates for the appointment to the Board". The CPA Australia Board, excluding those Directors who were to sit on the CPA Advice Board, then approved the appointment of five existing directors and remuneration of: 100K per annum for Chair $70K per annum for Directors."

Alex Malley recommended to the CPA Australia Board meeting as per the IRP and in minutes of CPA Board meeting in February 2015, the candidates and remuneration. Alex Malley says he just did what the board told him, but he did much much more then that. The evidence would suggest that Alex Malley has not disclosed the whole truth, given that he sat in on the board meetings.

He said in an interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFkTBMt51EQ The Real CFO Alex Malley, Telling it How it is - Part 2, at 2 minutes 36 seconds into the interview. The Naked CEO idea was Alex Malley's idea as recorded in the CPA Australia Board minutes. He even states that that the "CPA Brand was never at the core of the Naked CEO" Wanted to get community and generation involved and then integrate into the CPA brand. What brand?

Not a lot of the board members since 2009 have really come out to support Alex Malley or the job that he did. Why?

In the 2009 financial report Alex Malley stated " Members are our primary stakeholders, and we must be accessible and accountable to them. In my first article as CEO in In TheBlack l published my email address and mobile phone number and invited members to call if they wanted to speak to me. The offer remain open and, in case you missed them, my contact details are a the foot of this page. Accountability starts with me."

in the 2012 financial report Alex Malley Stated " I am pleased to report that over the course of 2012 we significantly grew our social media channels, introduced a completely new initiative, The Naked CEO, that more effectively engages with the student market, implemented a new ASAP marketing campaign to drive enrolments, and more than doubled the number of Recognised Employer Partners" " We also focused on growing our brand in new, innovative ways and deliberately broadening the audience of people who take an interest in what CPAs do and what CPA Australia does, both in Australia and overseas. This involved launching a completely new initiative to more effectively engage the student market. Titled The Naked CEO, the aim was to create and deliver an online video and mentoring series for students that bridged the important gap between the theory and reality of leadership success."

The strategy was to increase membership and increase business to the education part of the business.

Initial findings of the review into CPA Australia cast doubt over the future of CPA Australia Advice, show the association was told to freeze the president's pay in 2016, and reveal a misdirection of funds in relation to marketing.
Katarina Taurian -
12:00 PM, 14 Sep 2017

A review into the operations of CPA Australia, conducted by a panel chaired by former auditor-general Ian McPhee, has this afternoon released its preliminary report. The review was announced in mid-June, when the association was led by former chief executive Alex Malley and in the midst of a series of director resignations.

CPA Australia Advice

The review found that CPA Australia had genuine intent to provide a licensing service that was in the best interest of members, given the looming expiration of the accountants’ exemption, which allowed accountants to provide SMSF advice without an AFSL until July 2016.

However, the review's findings that the uptake of CPA Advice has fallen short of business case forecasts is at odds with public messaging from CPA Australia, both during and after the reign of Mr Malley.

At a Senate hearing last week, both president Jim Dickson and director Graeme Wade, repeatedly rejected suggestions that the licensing arm is a failure.

In early June, Mr Malley told Accountants Daily that the early stages of take-up are in line with expectations, and that he had accepted from the outset that growing the advice arm would be a “long game.”

“The current financial performance of CPA Advice has been poor relative to the business case in regard to revenue, and substantial changes are likely needed to make CPA Advice viable in the medium to long term,” said the review.

Adding to the difficulty of getting members to convert to CPA Australia Advice, the review found the association did not take steps to evaluate elements of CPA Advice’s performance early enough.

“CPA Advice attempted to address some member concerns around cost in May 2017, when it reduced fees for its licensing options. However, from the documents and information the review panel has been provided, little action was taken outside of this to assess and address the drivers of CPA Advice’s underperformance,” the report said.

“More recently, and in response to the trend of low take up, costs have been reduced, primarily through a reduction in salaries with cuts to staffing.”

The review notes that, through cost reductions, CPA Advice has been able to reduce losses to less than those projected in the business case. This is a continuing focus for CPA Australia.

“In the financial year ending 31 December 2016, CPA Advice had a loss of $5.7 million for the year and a combined trading loss of $7.4 million since inception. This compares favourably to business case projections,” the review said.

The review also notes that CPA Australia was potentially too late to market with its advice offering, becoming available in April 2016, four months before the accountants’ exemption expired.

Further, and as suggested previously by Accountants Daily, the review found that CPA Australia’s business case for its licensing arm identified a number of key risks, including those related to professional indemnity insurance and lack of member engagement.

Governance in focus

The panelists noted that, back in 2006, members desired greater clarity around the governance framework of CPA Australia, saying that at the time it was poorly defined and lacks transparency. The report acknowledges the association made a substantial overhaul of its governance arrangements following these findings.

However, there remains the potential for the board to have a high level of influence over the association’s representative council. The representative council is responsible for appointing the CPA Australia board of directors.

“Under the constitution, the board has a number of links to the representative council. These links potentially give the board influence in the representative council’s composition, and create a connection between the board and the mechanism to appoint the board. The board’s influence also extends to the divisional council’s composition. For example the board may determine that any number of divisional councillors must be elected from a particular place or region,” the report said.

Interestingly, the review notes that this is not uncommon amongst professional member bodies, making particular note of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ).

“In the case of CA ANZ, the president and two vice presidents act as the connection between CA ANZ’s board and its equivalent to the representative council, the CA ANZ Council,” the report said.

The report recommended that the representative council’s composition be reviewed, to ensure it is meeting the requirements of independence from the board.

Member concerns about the appointment of former CPA divisional vice president for the ACT, Tim Youngberry, to the board as a casual vacancy were also addressed. The review panel says it is satisfied his appointment was made in accordance with the constitution, supported by legal advice.

Moving forward, CPA Australia should also consider exploring concerns and issues without the presence of management, the review panel said, and reconsider the appropriate number of further terms for the director and the president.

Pay above expectations, benchmarks

The association has consistently defended remuneration of its key personnel, saying it is in line with the scope of the organisation and based on advice from independent and external remuneration consultants.

However, external consultants advised the review panellists that CPA Australia’s president’s remuneration, as well as that of its CEO, were above the expectations of members and those of benchmarked member-based organisations. Directors were within expected range.

The report also notes that, in 2016, the then chair of the nomination and remuneration committee had the current CFO benchmark non-executive director remuneration through an external party.

It was recommended at that time that president remuneration was above the recommended multiple of non-executive director remuneration, and should be frozen at current levels or reduced.

Further, the review found that the appointment of directors to the CPA Advice board did not follow the same procedure as CPA Australia.

“CPA Advice board appointment and remuneration did not follow the same procedure as CPA Australia. Candidates and remuneration were recommended by the former CEO in a meeting in February 2015. The former CEO ‘outlined the recommended candidates for the appointment to the board,’" the report said.

“The CPA Australia board, excluding those directors who were to sit on the CPA Advice board, then approved the appointment of five existing directors and remuneration of $100,000 per annum for chair and $70,000 per annum for directors.”

Members of the CPA Advice board also sit on the CPA Australia board.

The review has so far recommended that CPA Australia use more appropriate benchmarks for remuneration, and that the CEO salary in particular be based on organisations relevant to CPA Australia’s context.

Marketing mismatch

Members have taken particular issue with the marketing strategies of CPA Australia, especially the CEO-centric approach taken under the reign of Mr Malley.

The review found that, consistent with CPA’s public comments, marketing expenditure as a proportion of revenue has been relatively stable. Further, it found that the association’s objectives and expenditure are consistent with comparable organisations.

However, in line with member feedback, prominent marketing activity choices - such as high profile sports sponsorships - caused tension amongst members, and depart from common practice of professional member organisations.

The review has also so far concluded that the brand building activities centred on Mr Malley has led to reputational risks for CPA Australia, and were contrary to the expectations of members.

Further, the review found that some activities may have been a misdirection of CPA Australia funds. This includes the ‘Naked CEO’ promotion in New York’s Times Square, airport promotion for the ‘Naked CEO’ and network selection for the television program ‘In Conversation with Alex Malley.’

Structural issues may have prevented appropriate checks and balances for the association’s marketing strategy, and led to Mr Malley having a “greater role in marketing than would otherwise be expected.”

“Discussions with CPA Australia employees have highlighted that the two most contentious marketing investments were closely owned, managed and driven by the former CEO. Employees express that the former CEO utilised the skills, relationships and resources of different teams to execute ‘In Conversation with Alex Malley’ and the ‘Naked CEO’ without involving general managers on a strategic level,” the report said.

"As such, the panel said CPA Australia should consider a review of the organisation structure of marketing-related business units to fit within an overall organisational structure, according to the panel."

Looking ahead

Despite the scathing details of this report, the association is confident its renewal - beginning with an entirely refreshed board in January 2018 - will stabilise its standing with members, and the public reputation of the designation.

"The report is another important step as we carefully and methodically work through a process of reform and renewal, and hand over to a new board a strong and member-centric organisation. A number of the issues covered in the report have been addressed in recent months, and the findings will inform future changes," president Jim Dickson told Accountants Daily.

"The board commissioned the review to provide a robust, independent analysis of issues being raised by members and that is what has been delivered today,” he said.

These comments follow Mr Dickson's apology to members at a Senate hearing last week. He acknowledged the frustration felt by members during this period of significant change.

Page 1 "Consistent with the culture of CPA Australia over its history, CPA Australia Advice has an ethos of integrity and transparency built into our charter."

Page 5 " Employees of CPA Australia Advice receive a salary and do not receive any commissions or other cash incentives from issuers of financial products. Out employees may be eligible for a bonus payment based on a number of factors relating to their overall performance during the year. The factors include:
* meeting or exceeding standards of excellence in client service;
* the level of revenue they generate: or
* meeting an individual sales target (not product driven).
Our employees may also receive benefits such as tickets to sporting and other cultural events, corporate promotional merchandise and other similar benefits. If material, these will be recorded on the Soft Dollar Register."

What Soft Dollar Register?

"CPA Australia Advice is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPA Australia Limited. CPA Australia Limited in its own right may accept sponsorship and receive advertising revenue from financial product providers relating to services available to accountants that are members of CPA Australia."

Page 1 "Consistent with the culture of CPA Australia over its history, CPA Australia Advice has an ethos of integrity and transparency built into our charter."

Page 5 " Employees of CPA Australia Advice receive a salary and do not receive any commissions or other cash incentives from issuers of financial products. Our employees may be eligible for a bonus payment based on a number of factors relating to their overall performance during the year. The factors include:
* meeting or exceeding standards of excellence in client service;
* the level of revenue they generate: or
* meeting an individual sales target (not product driven).
Our employees may also receive benefits such as tickets to sporting and other cultural events, corporate promotional merchandise and other similar benefits. If material, these will be recorded on the Soft Dollar Register."

What Soft Dollar Register?

"CPA Australia Advice is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPA Australia Limited. CPA Australia Limited in its own right may accept sponsorship and receive advertising revenue from financial product providers relating to services available to accountants that are members of CPA Australia."

What a joke.
$47,000 revenue in 19 months.
Soft Dollar Register.
Can receive benefits such as tickets to sporting events.

The board pronounce high standards then practise at the opposite end of the spectrum.
The words they say and use have lost all meaning.
What does integrity mean given what has gone at CPA Australia over the last decade?
What does 'true and fair' mean given the same especially in relation to the reporting on CPA Australia Advice?

The fundamental question we all need to ask, and perhaps illustrates how far we have fallen as a profession with our standards (and some academics such as Graeme Dean, Ray Chambers, Frank Gardiner etc., have been on this for quite a while now), is how have the annual reports of CPA Australia shown the real 'true and fair' view of CPA Australia?
With what has been exposed I would say not very well at all. And that is the professional question we need to answer.
I find it ironic that some of the academics who raise these really profound accounting questions are from Sydney University which also is ''home' to the immediate past Chairman of CPA Australia Tyrone Carlin as Deputy Vice-Chancellor who resigned 'under a cloud of exposure on these matters recently.
How one puts this all together defies m

I call upon all accounting university lecturers, professors and tutors, to start contributing articles in accounting here upon this site, so that reasonable discussions about actual accounting issues can be undertaken. There are so many research papers which raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of the financial reporting in the accounting industry, but no real manner to collectively discuss them. The "InTheBlack" magazine certainly is not an accounting magazine any more, nor is it an avenue for effective discussion about issues in accounting. CPA Australia pays so many consultants, yet the actual accounting information appear limited.

Issues concerning the declaration of "True and fair" in the Not For Profit set of accounts. The True and Fair declaration by Mark Stretton from Deloitte's in the CPA Australia annual financial accounts is very questionable, given all the issues raised by member on this site and by the accounting industry in general.

Issues concerning the effectiveness of the audit undertaken for a large Not For Profit organisation like CPA Australia. Is it not about time to review the type of audits undertaken for these large Not For Profit ogranisations? There appears to be a diminishing confidence within the community with regards to the function and audits being undertaken, given the many serious problems raised over the years like the Health Service Union and RSL NSW. Are these types of audits really worth the money?

Issues concerning whether a regular Quality Assurance review of the operation of CPA Australia is required. given it not the auditor's role, in the performance of their audit function.

Issues concerning the consolidated accounting reports, which the international federation, and the major accounting boards are pressing for, seems to fail the principle ideals of accounting, which is to provide financial accounts which meet the needs of the principle users.

Issues concerning the notes to account, and the effectiveness of the accounting standards, and the how those notes have no clear relevance to either the profit and loss statement, nor the balance sheet.

Issues concerning disclosure of remuneration and Key Management Personnel. If CPA Australia has problems even following AASB 124 Related Party Disclosure, then what hope for the rest of the accounting industry? Is it because the standards are poorly drafted? The Australian Accounting Standards Board, along with all the other boards need to serious review all the accounting standards, and improve the disclosure. If the President of CPA Australia advise the members, that they have met the minimum accounting standards, then what hope for the next generation of accountants.

Thanks for the idea Nakedadmin. Shall have to see if any real interest for the idea first. Its like a resolution to get rid of the life time membership for the past presidents. The idea is good, but the support may be quite small.